Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 31, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 2017M03

Moving Party(ies): Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 5757 Coopers Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-040-116-35298-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3043468

Taxation Year(s): 2013

Hearing Event No.: 676173

Legislative Authority: Rule 83 of the Assessment Review Board’s (“Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: May 25, 2017 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

J. Chaney Morkill

City of Mississauga

John O’Kane⁺

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

Background

1On May 24, 2017, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the “Union”) filed a motion in writing, seeking an adjournment of the hearing of this appeal, which is set to take place on June 7, 2017. Notice of the Hearing was sent to the parties on April 4, 2017. No evidence was filed to support this motion, but the Union indicates that its representative will be on vacation the week of the hearing. The City of Mississauga (the “City”) has not filed any evidence or submissions on this motion, though the Union indicates that the City consents to the adjournment request.

2On May 25, 2017, the Board advised the parties that the Appellant’s request for the adjournment is denied, with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

Legislation and Rules

3The relevant legislation and Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure are:

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31:

Duty re appeals

36. (5) As soon as practicable after the return of the assessment roll for a municipality or for non-municipal territory, as the case may be, the Assessment Review Board shall hear and dispose of all appeals respecting assessments for the year for which the roll is returned.

Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:

Motion for Adjournment

83. A party may bring a motion for an adjournment of a hearing event, setting out:

a) the consent of the other parties, if applicable;

b) a suggested date for hearing event;

c) detailed reasons for the request;

d) evidence that the party made all reasonable efforts to avoid the adjournment; and

e) any inconvenience to other persons.

Factors to Consider

84. Before granting any adjournment, the Board must consider:

a) the interests of the parties in a full and fair proceeding;

b) the impact of the adjournment on parties and other persons;

c) the integrity of the Board’s process, including the Board's ability to efficiently resolve all appeals filed with the Board within the current four year cycle;

d) the circumstances giving rise to the need for an adjournment;

e) the timeliness of the request for the adjournment;

f) the position of the other parties;

g) the public interest in the delivery of the Board’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner; and

h) any practice directions issued by the Board.

Powers of the Board upon Adjournment Request

85. When an adjournment is granted the Board may impose any conditions it considers appropriate.

Issue

4The only issue is whether the Union’s request for an adjournment should be granted.

Discussion

5Rule 84 lists the factors that I must consider before granting an adjournment. I will address each factor in turn.

6The first factor is “the interests of the parties in a full and fair proceeding.” The Union argues that the adjournment protects its right to a full and fair hearing. But I have no evidence of how the adjournment achieves that. A full and fair hearing does not necessarily mean unrestricted access to a party’s representative of choice.

7The second factor is “the impact of the adjournment on parties and other persons.” The impact on the Union is a need for an alternate representative. The City sought a summons to have a witness appear at the June 7, 2017 hearing on May 12, 2017. That summons was issued by the Board on May 16, 2017. That process would need to be repeated should the adjournment be granted. There is also a negative impact on that witness if the hearing is adjourned less than two weeks prior to the hearing.

8The third factor is “the integrity of the Board’s process, including the Board's ability to efficiently resolve all appeals filed with the Board within the current four year cycle.” Section 36(5) of the Assessment Act imposes on the Board an obligation to hear and dispose of all appeals as soon as practicable after the return of the roll. The Board cannot resolve disputes on a timely basis if hearings do not proceed when scheduled. Each delay results in wasted time and resources, due to the difficulty in reassigning Members of the Board on short notice.

9The fourth factor is “the circumstances giving rise to the need for an adjournment.” The Union seeks the adjournment on the basis of a planned vacation, which it has known of for some time.

10The fifth factor is “the timeliness of the request for the adjournment.” The Union states that its representative booked and paid for this vacation before the Notice of Hearing was received. The Union became aware of this hearing on April 4, 2017, but did not file this motion until May 24, 2017, 50 days later. The Union did not explain why it sat on its hands while the City summoned witnesses and the Board prepared for the hearing.

11The sixth factor is “the position of the other parties.” Here, the City consents to the adjournment.

12The final relevant factor is “the public interest in the delivery of the Board’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner.” It is important that hearings take place when scheduled. The hearing is scheduled less than two weeks from when this motion was filed. Granting the adjournment, at this point, would result in wasted resources for the other parties and the Board. The Board cannot deliver its services in a timely and cost effective manner if the personal schedule of a party, or its representative, is given priority over the Board’s process.

13I have considered all of the factors set out in Rule 84. The only factor supporting an adjournment here is the consent of the other parties. None of other factors support granting the adjournment. Accommodating a representative’s pre-planned vacation at this late stage of the appeal proceeding is not a situation justifying an adjournment, especially when the representative’s vacation plans, and the resulting conflict has been known for over a month. The Union’s motion for an adjournment is denied.